Chapter 9

Organizational and Community Interventions

Chapter Aims

After reading this chapter you will be able to answer the following questions: (a) What are organizational and community interventions?, (b) Why are they important?, (c) What is the value-base of organizational and community interventions?, (d) What are the roles of community psychologists in organizational and community interventions?, (e) What are the strengths and limitations of social interventions?, and (f) What are the dilemmas facing community psychologists in this type of work?

We link in this chapter organizational and community interventions because most efforts for liberation and well-being take place in, or through, organizations like human services, voluntary agencies, or alternative settings (see Chapter 7). To enable community change, first we have to persuade our own organizations to contribute to the process. Organizations possess human and material resources that are crucial for initiating and invigorating ameliorative and transformative interventions. But we should not take it for granted that organizations will rally behind social change; or that they will examine critically their own role in promoting suffering and oppression, either in their own workers or in the communities they serve. In a multi-site study exploring the ethical dilemmas of mental health workers in agencies and clinics, we found that most organizations (a) fall short of supporting their own workers in resolving daily dilemmas, and (b) resist changes that may diminish management control or increase worker and stakeholder decision making power (Prilleltensky, Sanchez, Walsh-Bowers, Rossiter, 2002; Prilleltensky, Walsh-Bowers, Rossiter, 1999; Rossiter, Prilleltensky, & Walsh-Bowers, 2000; Rossiter, Walsh-Bowers, Prilleltensky, 2002). Box 9.1 is a reminder of how difficult it is for organizations to think outside the square.

[Insert Box 9.1 About Here]

These studies reinforced in us the belief that even well meaning institutions can be unresponsive to the needs of workers and clients alike. As we saw in Chapter 7, community psychology begins at home, where we live, where we work, where we volunteer. It would be un-psychological for us to expect to contribute to others’ well-being and liberation when we suffer from oppression and indifference in our own backyard. It would be equally un-psychological for us to promote well-being in the community at large when we ignore the plight of those next to us at work. Therefore, we deal in this chapter with interventions that promote the well-being of workers in organizations and of citizens in communities. We look at organizational development as an end in itself, designed to improve the life of workers; and as a means to an end, the promotion of well-being and liberation in disadvantaged communities. These organizational aims are congruent with the principles and values of community psychology (Boyd & Angelique, 2002; Keys & Frank, 1987; Shinn & Perkins, 2000; Tseng, Chesir-Teran, Becker-Klein, Chan, Duran, Robers, & Bardoliwalla, 2002).

WHAT ARE ORGANIZATIONAL AND COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS?

Inasmuch as community psychologists strive to promote liberation and well-being in marginalized groups, we are interested in organizational and community interventions that foster these two goals. Communities depend on organizations for their improvement, while organizations justify their existence by assisting communities. Community interventions always occur through the efforts of people organized in either formal institutions or loosely based grass-roots agencies or NGOs.

Re-organizing Organizations

For us, organizational interventions are systematic methods of enhancing an institution’s capacity to promote the personal, relational, and collective well-being of their workers and community stakeholders. This definition is congruent with Maton and Salem’s (1995) characterization of empowering organizations, according to whom empowering settings enable workers, service recipients and community stakeholders to experience greater self-determination (personal well-being), social support (relational well-being), and awareness of political forces impinging on their lives (collective well-being). The interconnection among the three levels of well-being was illustrated in a church-based organization where social bonds and close relationships contributed to both psychological empowerment and effective collective action (Speer, Hughey, Gensheimer and Adams-Leavitt, 1995). While the organizations studied by Maton and Salem concentrated on consumer well-being, the groups studied by Speer and colleagues went beyond members’ well-being and focused on political action for community change. The leap from well-being to liberation is not an easy one. Some organizations, like the ones reported by Maton and Salem, do a good job at empowering their own members, but don’t always engage in political action or coalition formation. Others, like the ones explored by Speer and colleagues, manage to focus more attention on issues of power, oppression and disadvantage. In this chapter we wish to explore organizations that re-organize to contribute to the internal well-being of their own workforce, and to the external struggles of oppressed groups.

Politicising Communities

By community interventions we mean efforts by organized groups and agencies to enhance the well-being of community members marginalized by social practices of exclusion, cultural norms of discrimination, and economic policies of injustice and inequality (Ife, 2002; Mullaly, 2002; Rappaport, 1977). Community well-being, as noted in Chapter 2, is predicated on emancipation from oppressive forces. Therefore, we are not content to improve narrow aspects of health, such as better hygiene or diet awareness, when systemic conditions of inequality perpetuate hunger. Similarly, we are not satisfied to improve charity services when the conditions that lead to charity in the first place continue unabated. In the language of Chapter 7, we seek to develop community interventions that go beyond amelioration and move toward transformation. This is not an either/or. We do not advocate the elimination of social supports because they do not eliminate economic exploitation. Services are very much needed. What we do advocate is the pairing of ameliorative and transformative thinking and action (Prilleltensky & Nelson, 1997, 2002). We recommend intervening in communities in such a way that they receive services and resources and increase their political awareness and capacity for mobilization at the same time. Hence, we put emphasis here on strategies that ameliorate and, concurrently, have the potential to transform. Although these strategies are not the norm but rather the exception, a recent issue of the American Journal of Community Psychology (Watts & Serrano Garcia, in press) contains examples of interventions that combine skill enhancement with sociopolitical awareness. In Chapter 23 Bennett describes how his community development work has a clear transformational focus.

WHAT VALUES JUSTIFY ORGANIZATIONAL AND COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS?

In principle, all the values presented in Chapters 2 and 3 justify the need for organizational and community interventions. We remarked before that well-being emanates from the confluence of balanced value systems. Thus, well-being takes place at the intersection of holism, health, caring and compassion, self-determination, participation, social justice, respect for diversity and accountability. When the salience of one or more of these values obscures the presence of others, the balance is shaken. Different organizations and communities emphasize some values more than others. Although our assessment is not definitive, it seems to us that most organizations and communities pay attention to health and caring and compassion, and, to some extent, to diversity and participation. Few, however, are the organizations and communities that place social justice, holism, and accountability front and centre (Prilleltensky, 2001). Not by coincidence, the three neglected values have to do power. Social justice has to do with the fair and equitable distribution of burdens and resources in society, something that cannot happen unless those with power relinquish some of it. Similarly, accountability cannot be fulfilled unless there is a transfer of power away from dominant sectors. Holism, which can be deceiving because it is often narrowly interpreted, is not only about the natural environment, but also about the social context. And power, as we know, is an immanent part of the social ecology. Unless we view power and its unequal distribution as a central determinant of health and well-being, we will continue to shift pieces within the present configuration of injustice, without challenging injustice itself (Ife, 2002).

The very neglect of power inequality warrants organizational and community interventions that do more than amelioration. In his analysis of community coalitions, Himmelman (2001) arrives at a similar conclusion. Without power equalization coalitions cannot go further than community betterment. With it, they can approximate community empowerment.

WHY ARE ORGANIZATIONAL AND COMMUNITY

INTERVENTIONS SO IMPORTANT?

We spend most of our lives in organizations, either as workers or recipients of services such as education. Think about your life. As a student, you probably spent by now about 14 years of your life in school. Once you leave university, you are very likely to join a workplace. If you do sports, you practice in an organizational setting. If you volunteer, you do so in an agency. People spend most of their lives in one kind of organization or another. The way organizations operate has an impact on you, your family, and society at large.

Organizations can promote life satisfaction and creativity (Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Marmot & Finney, 1996) or can induce a great deal of stress, as in the case of workplace strain, bullying and harassment (Beehr & O’Driscoll, 2002; Bond, 1999; Duffy & Wong, 2000; Svyantek & Brown, 2002; Tehrani, 2001; Thomas & Hite, 2002). In a very compelling longitudinal study, Marmot (1999) showed that the level of control exercised by different people within an organization has powerful effects on health, well-being, and even mortality. The less control people have, the higher the risk of dying (see Box 9.2).

[Insert Box 9.2 About Here]

Intervening in communities is just as important. The gradient observed in mortality rates among British civil servants is replicated in social classes at large. Gradient means an increase in risk with an increase in disadvantage. In a recent longitudinal study of 18751 people in Oslo, McCubbin and Dalgard (2002) found that powerlessness was a very strong predictor of distress and ill-health in the population. Just as the lowest paid and lowest skilled workers in the Marmot study had the highest risk of death, so do people in the lowest occupational level in Oslo experience the greatest amount of powerlessness and distress (see Figure 9.1).

[Insert Figure 9.1 About Here]

Within countries, the poor, the unemployed, refugees, single parents, ethnic minorities and the homeless have poorer indices of health than more privileged groups (Blane, Bruner, & Wilkinson, 1996; Marmot & Wilkinson, 1999). This applies not only to poor countries, but to rich countries as well. Homeless people in western countries, for example, are 34 times more likely to kill themselves than the general population, 150 times more likely to be fatally assaulted, and 25 times more likely to die in any period of time than the people who ignore them on the streets (Shaw, Dorling, & Smith, 1999).

In addition to the pressing need to narrow the economic gap, there is some urgency to increase social cohesion, solidarity, and psychological sense of community (Fisher, Sonn, & Bishop, 2002; Mustard, 1996). Inspiring community interventions, like the one carried out in Kerala (see Chapter 8), and others reported in North America by Repucci and colleagues (Repucci, Woolard, & Fried, 1999), show that mobilization can deliver positive effects in reducing hunger, malnutrition, violence, and addictions, and in enhancing community health, social capital and quality of life.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGISTS

WORKING IN ORGANIZATIONS?

We identify two potential roles for community psychologists working in organizations. The first one is the promotion of amelioration and transformation within the organization. The second role is the pursuit of amelioration and transformation in the community served by the organization. These roles may be fulfilled either as internal or external agents of change. To be effective, community psychologists require certain skills. The skills we present extend the emotional competencies of effective leaders documented by Goleman (1995, 1998). Whereas Goleman’s skills of emotional intelligence apply primarily to organizational efficacy, we discuss the implications of such skills for transformational work. Finally, based on the work of Prochaska and colleagues on processes of change, we describe the steps necessary to succeed in organizational development (Prochaska, Norcross, & DiClemente, 1994; Weick & Quinn, 1999).

[Insert table 9.1 About Here]

Promote Amelioration and Transformation within the Organization

We show in Table 9.1 a variety of outcomes pertaining to either amelioration or transformation. The difference in outcomes is predicated on the depth of the changes and the values that underpin them. Ameliorative interventions pay more attention to the values of health, collaboration, and support, whereas transformational interventions attend more to self-determination, social justice and accountability. Some values, such as self-determination and participation, can be promoted in ameliorative and transformational interventions, but in very different degrees. The literature on employee involvement and participation demonstrates that organizations vary greatly in the degree of autonomy they grant to their workers and volunteers. Most business organizations tend to limit employee input to suggestions for problem-solving activities (Klein, Ralls, Smith Major & Douglas, 2000; Wadell, Cummings, & Worley, 2000; Weick & Quinn, 1999), whereas human services and alternative settings usually afford workers and volunteers more voice and choice (Cherniss, 2002; Cherniss & Deegan, 2000; Maton & Salem, 1995; Nelson, Lord, & Ochocka, 2000; Sarason, 1972). This may reflect the fact that the latter “focuses on empowerment and well-being” and the former on “productivity and profitability” (Shinn & Perkins, 2000, p. 635). It should be noted, however, that within each type of organization, business, public sector, or human services, there is also great variability in the amount of control and participation given to workers.

Interventions to enhance worker participation take place in small groups where colleagues discuss ways to improve productivity or service delivery. Some of these initiatives have been called Total Quality Management (TQM) or Quality of Working Life (QWL). In essence, groups are formed to analyse processes and outcomes of work and ways to enhance effectiveness and satisfaction. The nature of the groups varies greatly, with some being initiated by management, others by external consultants, and others by union-management committees (Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Klein et al., 2000; Wadell, Cummings & Worley, 2000). Depending of their origins and intent, groups can exercise more or less influence, can be permanent or sporadic, tokenistic or serious. The impact of such groups may very well depend on the depth of the changes generated by them, and on the actual control afforded by management.

Although it is hard to generalize because of the variability in teams and forms of worker participation, several reviews documented positive effects for both productivity and worker satisfaction (Duffy & Wong, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Klein et al., 2000; Shinn & Perkins, 2000; Wadell, Cummings, & Worley, 2000; Weick & Quinn, 1999). Reviewers seem to agree that the overall impact on productivity and worker satisfaction depends on the duration, intensity, and actual--as opposed to perceived--control over jobs. When these conditions are present and long lasting, organizations improve their services and workers feel better about their jobs. When interventions are short-lived and half-hearted, positive results fade rather quickly. If means of increasing worker participation and control were profound, institutionalised, and endorsed by management, we could say that an ameliorative change has turned into a transformative one. Thus, it is not only the type of values endorsed that make a difference between amelioration and transformation, but also the degree to which the values are fostered.

Reducing stress in the workplace is an aim of many managers, consultants, and worker themselves. Strategies to alleviate stress include participation in decision-making, structural innovations, ergonomic approaches, role-based interventions, social support, and provision of information. In a comprehensive review of the literature, Beehr and O’Driscoll (2002) found that most interventions had only modest effects on stress reduction. Some of the most promising strategies included worker participation in decision-making and role clarification. Role ambiguity, role conflict and role overload are three serious causes of strain. Making sure that workers know what is expected of them, that they do not have unrealistic caseloads, and that they have management support for their duties are useful ways of decreasing strain (Beehr & O’Driscoll, 2002). Role ambiguity is very common in human service organizations. In several of our studies, workers in clinics and family agencies reported dilemmas related to caseloads, territoriality, diffused responsibility, and lack of support by supervisors and management (Prilleltensky, Sanchez, Walsh-Bowers, Rossiter, 2002; Prilleltensky, Walsh-Bowers, Rossiter, 1999; Rossiter, Prilleltensky, & Walsh-Bowers, 2000; Rossiter, Walsh-Bowers, Prilleltensky, 2002). Participants reported that peer support, management backing, and the creation of a safe space for sharing dilemmas were essential components of effectiveness, satisfaction, and sometimes even “emotional survival.” Social support in the workplace has long been recognized as an important correlate of worker well-being (Kyrouz & Humphreys, 1997; Milne, 1999; Quick, Quick, Nelson, Hurrell, 1997; Shinn & Perkins, 2000; Stansfeld, 1999).

Transformational interventions that enhance the well-being of workers can be found in both the human and business sectors. In the human services sector, including health, mental health, disabilities, education, and employment organizations, transformational workplaces tend to have horizontal structures with minimal hierarchies. In addition, they tend to make decisions by consensus and to flatten to power differentials within the organization (Reinharz, 1984; Riger, 2000). Many feminist organizations were created with visions of equality and mutual accountability (hooks, 2002). Self-help organizations often espouse egalitarian structures as well, as do alternative settings that are value-based, mission oriented, and human-focused (Cherniss & Deegan, 2000). In reviewing the creation of alternative settings in human services, Cherniss and Deegan noted that “the self-development of the staff and the health of the organization were considered to be two of the most important priorities” (2000, p. 374).

In business organizations we are also witnessing an increase in the number of the co-operatives and worker owned enterprises (Quarter, 1992; Quarter & Melnyk, 1989). Many of these organizations emphasize human, social and environmental aims and not only the economic bottom line. Korten (1999) documents the spread of such initiatives around the world. These cooperative forms of ownership increase worker well-being, economic security, collective responsibility and environmental awareness. According to Korten (1999), “we are only beginning to tap the possibilities for organizing economic activity with a minimum of hierarchy and central control” (p. 178).

The creation of transformative workplaces is challenging (Cherniss & Deegan, 2000; Goldenberg, 1971; Korten, 1999; Sarason, 1972). Most pioneers point to serious, but not insurmountable barriers. Key obstacles include balancing effectiveness with decentralization of control, economic viability in a world of competition, and meeting the needs of the individual and the collective at the same time. These are exciting places for community psychologists to practice their trade.

Promote Amelioration and Transformation

in the Community Served by the Organization

Improving quality of life for workers is only part of a community psychologist’s job. The other part is to enhance the well-being of consumers, citizens and communities at large. Caring and compassion and client participation in decision-making processes go a long way in humanizing social services and empowering people who experience disadvantage. Re-designing organizations with consumer well-being in mind is a very appropriate task for community psychologists. We can see in Box 9.3 examples of organizations promoted or supported by community psychologists. Both in the Lodge Society and in Oxford House, community psychologists assist in the development, evaluation, and dissemination of organizational models that are empowering of residents experiencing mental health problems or addicitions.

[Insert Box 9.3 About Here]

In a longitudinal study of three empowering organizations, including a program for African American university students, a religious group, and a self-help group for people with psychiatric disabilities, Maton and Salem (1995) recognized some distinct features that contributed to the well-being of participants. These organizations had

· Inspiring leaders,

· Growth-oriented belief systems,

· Strength-based philosophies,

· Structures that enabled learning and role rotation,

· Focus on self and community,

· Comprehensive systems of social support, and

· High sense of community.

Community psychologists can do much to ensure that human service organizations adopt the lessons of the Lodge Society, Oxford House, and the other empowering settings described above.

As in the case of organizational change, transitioning from amelioration to transformation in communities is hard. In fact, such a move is a test of our resolve to push community psychology to new horizons. Paul Speer and his colleagues have been studying an organization that is trying to make change and not just to cure (Speer, 2002; Speer & Hughey, 1995; Speer, Hughey, Gensheimer, & Adams Leavitt, 1995). Pacific Institute of Community Organizations (PICO) is a community-organizing network with affiliates in 25 cities across the United States. PICO helps to organize communities to demand more resources for children, families, crime prevention, poor neighbourhoods, and people with addictions and other social problems. This organization is very clear on the need to transcend therapeutic models and to use community power to access more resources. Three principles support PICO’s organizing efforts:

· Empowerment can only be realized through organizing

· Social power is built on the strength of interpersonal relationships

· Individual empowerment must be grounded in a dialectic of action and reflection

PICO is successful in empowering its members and in getting results. Like other empowering organizations, this one allows members to rotate in their roles and to engage in a variety of tasks. Some of the jobs done by members and volunteers include getting information from public officials, asking politicians difficult questions, mobilizing communities for rallies, arranging transportation, arranging media coverage, facilitating meetings and others. Some of the results include better resources for communities and increased awareness of the political dynamics oppressing the poor and the disenfranchised. In one campaign PICO obtained from city council and private corporations $ 9 million for substance abuse treatment and prevention.

Community psychologists can learn from and assist organizations and communities to change. This can be done from within the organization, as internal agents of change, or from the outside, as consultants or volunteers. We explore in the next sections these different roles.

[Insert Table 9.2 About Here]

Internal and External Agents of Change

Community psychologists can help organizations and communities from the inside or the outside (see Table 9.2). Graduating community psychologists often get jobs as program planners, managers in human services, program evaluators, or directors of community services or government departments. Other community psychologists open their own consulting firms and work for other organizations on contract. Alternatively, consultants get government grants to help community organizations deliver a service or evaluate their programs. Both of us, Geoff and Isaac, have worked as internal and external agents of change. We worked in community mental health settings as clinical, school and community psychologists, and both of us provide consultation to a wide range of agencies and groups, including psychiatric consumer/survivor initiatives, community-based prevention programs, self-help groups for immigrants and refugees, community mental health organizations, health promotion foundations, child and family services, local government, voluntary organizations, advocacy and social action groups. Some of the work we do as consultants is on contract but we also do a lot of external consulting for free. It is part of being a citizen in a community. We have good paying jobs in universities that afford us the opportunity to spend time volunteering in the community, it is a privilege we do not take for granted.

Either as internal or external agents of change, community psychologists can exert more or less control over the process of change. Depending on the level of control exercised, Dimock (1992) identified six possible roles for agents of change. In decreasing order of control, they are:

· Director: managers or administrators who make decisions and give instructions in order to control the intervention

· Expert: System analyst or organizational consultant who diagnoses problems and uses knowledge to tell others what to do

· Consultant: Community developer and consultant who makes suggestions and whose influence derives from respect and trust

· Resource: Group trainer or resource provider who helps group to collect data and provides training in planning skills

· Facilitator: Process consultant, helper or group observer who assists with group processes

· Collaborator: Staff, board or community member who are interested in change and join groups or teams planning and carrying out interventions.

As internal or external agents of change community psychologists can fulfil any one of these roles. We caution, however, against the adoption of director or expert roles, as they tend to alienate partners. It is possible to be a manager or executive director, but still work in a very collaborative manner. The position does not have to dictate the intervention style. We favour intervention styles that are collaborative and that share control across levels of the organization and the community, not only because they are in line with our values, but also because they are more effective (Bond, 1999; Dimock, 1992; Ife, 2002; Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Klein et al., 2000; Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002; Shinn & Perkins, 2000).

Emotional Competencies and Their Transformational Potential

To be effective as internal or external agents of change community psychologists require a set of skills. In previous chapters we reviewed the conceptual foundations of community psychology theory, research, and action. In this section we want to emphasize some of the interpersonal and emotional competencies required to interact with people in organizations and communities. Goleman (1995, 1998) integrated a great deal of research concerning the personal and interpersonal skills that predict satisfaction in families, work, school, and communities. He called this set of skills emotional intelligence.

[Insert Table 9.3 About Here]

Goleman’s work provides a valuable foundation for understanding what is required to become an effective change maker. However, his contributions do not emphasize the same value-base or transformational goals that we deem important for community psychology. Goleman does not necessarily critique the exploitive nature of the corporations he studied, nor does he emphasize the need to use emotional intelligence to overcome oppression and injustice. Hence, we present in Table 9.3 the main emotional competencies identified by Goleman (1998) and their transformational potential. We agree with Goleman that these skills are vital for communicating effectively with others and exerting influence in respectful ways. He is very clear that change needs to take into account how other people feel about it. In our view, Goleman’s main contribution is to personal and relational well-being. We are interested in distilling the implications of his theory for collective well-being as well.

The left hand side of Table 9.3 lists the emotional competencies required to get along with others, to get along with oneself, and to get self and others to work for change. The right hand side of the table derives the implications of such skills for transformational change in organizations and communities. Whereas the top half of the table deals with personal competencies such as self awareness, self regulation and motivation, the lower half list social competencies such as empathy, communication skills, conflict resolution and leadership.

Goleman’s emotional competencies concentrate on the values of caring, compassion, and collaboration at the interpersonal level. We see in them potential to contribute to social justice and accountability at the collective level. If Goleman highlighted personal and interpersonal intelligence, we want to develop the concept of collective intelligence, or the ability of the individual to think about the well-being of the collective, and the capacity of the collective to act on behalf of the individual. As community psychologists, it is our job to find ways to promote collective intelligence, not just interpersonal skills.

[Insert Table 9.4 About Here]

Steps for Organizational Change

Now that we know what emotional competencies are needed to foster and sustain change in organizations, we can use them to make progress through the different stages of change. All phases of organizational development require a combination of self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy and social skills. Self-awareness is required to assess (a) how organizational dynamics affect your own well-being, and (b) your confidence to challenge the system. Self-regulation is required to make positive use of self-awareness in instigating change, while motivation is needed to get the process of transformation under way. Empathy, in turn, is needed to understand how the status quo and alternative modes of operation affect co-workers and partners. Social skills are essential in negotiating with multiple stakeholders the various tasks, aims, and processes of innovation, always mindful of how power differences affect the different players in the organization. Each phase of change calls for the synergy of the various emotional, interpersonal and transformational competencies described in Table 9.3.

Prochaska and colleagues postulated a theory of change that has been successfully used and applied to individual and organizational change (Prochaska, Norcorss, & DiClemente, 1994; Weick & Quinn, 1999). The theory describes predictable and necessary stages of change. Table 9.4 applies concepts of the theory to organizational work. For each one of the steps we describe key questions for planning and implementation. These questions should help you and other community psychologists in trying to produce change and recruit support for it.

The first two stages of change relate to pre-contemplation and contemplation. In pre-contemplation it is possible that nobody, except you perhaps, or a few silent others, are aware that something needs to be done about an unsatisfactory situation. In which case, somebody needs to raise consciousness about the problems. In contemplation you are already planting the seed to move the process forward. Discontent may turn into positive action. But for others to listen to you, you need to stay connected while creating a minor (or major) disturbance to the status quo. Bond (1999) coined the concept connected-disruption to describe the job of community psychologists within organizations. According to her we have to be able to point to unjust practices and still remain engaged with most people in order for them to listen to us.

“I characterize this prescription for change as connected disruption. Confronting our collective complacency with organizational arrangements that preclude meaningful involvement across gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability involves a process of developing a disruptive edge yet doing so while staying in relationships with others. It involves connecting to individuals while disrupting organizational culture.” (Bond, 1999, p. 351)

The third step, preparation, involves the planning and design of innovations or alterations to the current system of work, service delivery, or communication patterns, whatever the case might be. During the action phase, it is very important to make sure that all stakeholders affected by the new system of work are involved. Once again, not only is it in line with our values, but it is also the most efficacious way of going about change because it creates ownership, commitment and accountability (Dimock, 1992; Goleman, 1998; Johnson & Johnson, 2000).

Once the action has been initiated, it is crucial to put in place systems for monitoring accurate implementation of the intended changes. The sustainability and dissemination of innovations depend on a careful plan for making the innovation or new program an integral part of the institution (Dalton, Elias, & Wandersman, 2001). In the absence of maintenance and monitoring systems, change is likely to be weak and short lived. Although parts of the next step, evaluation, cannot be undertaken until changes have been introduced into the system, some aspects of the evaluation can be undertaken during the implementation itself. This will enable a formative assessment of how things are going. By observing the change process itself, we are able to feed back useful information that can improve and refine the innovation while it is being introduced. We call this process action research (Reason & Bradbury, 2001), and you will learn more about it in Chapters 11 and 12.

An ideal follow up to any process of organizational development is for the settings to become a learning organization itself, one that constantly evaluates and adjusts its operations in line with its values, goals, and changing contexts. The learning organization involves everyone in the process of improving the personal and interpersonal well-being of workers and the collective well-being of the community (Senge, 1990; Senge & Scharmer, 2001). This model has also been called the continuous change process (Weick & Quinn, 1999).

What are the Strengths and Weaknesses of Organizational Interventions?

The strengths of organizational interventions derive primarily from their potential to affect the lives of thousands or millions of people. Organizations affect our lives in multiple ways. The sooner we make workplaces, schools, civic institutions and government departments more participatory, value-based and transformational, the sooner we will be able to improve the lives of workers and communities alike. As social change happens in, through, and because of organizations, the potential to use organizations to produce larger changes is significant. Given that community psychologists work or volunteer in organizations, they have many opportunities to make a change.

But we have to be conscious of traps and threats. Complacency and resistance are major barriers to change (see Box 9.1). Swimming against the tide can be emotionally draining and potentially risky. Challengers of the status quo risk exclusion, marginalisation, labelling, and potential unemployment. The forces of resistance are almost always stronger than the forces of change (Beehr & O’Driscoll, 2002; Dimock, 1992; Hahn, 1994; Klein et al, 2000; Waddell, Cummings, & Worley, 2000; Weick & Quinn, 1999).

The ubiquitous risk of cosmetic changes is called tokenism. It is a technique used to introduce small changes that create the appearance of change but in fact help to prevent transformations. Sullivan (1984) calls this phenomenon dislocation, by which he means “a process whereby something new is brought into a cultural system and has the ability to mute the partial critical insight of that cultural system” (p. 165). Changes of a minor nature are introduced into organizations with the purpose of creating an aura of innovation, changes that invariably delay attention to more structural issues.

An exclusive inward focus is another potential deviation that needs to be monitored. Some organizations invest in development only to advance the interests of upper management or privileged stakeholders (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992; Baritz, 1974; Hollway, 1991; Lawthom, 1999). Business and human service organizations alike have also been criticized for starting half-hearted initiatives that create expectations of improvement but amount only to passing fads that strengthen the status quo (Prilleltensky, 1994; Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002).

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGISTS

WORKING IN COMMUNITIES?

The skills and processes required for organizational change apply to community change as well. In many cases, community psychologists represent one organization in working with another. Neighbourhood centres, schools, community mental health clinics, universities, they all interact with each other and with government in starting new programs or policies. But if the skills are similar, the contexts are different. We are moving from one level of analysis to another, a larger one. Inter-organizational work is becoming very prevalent in community psychology, and for good reasons. No one organization has the power to enhance community well-being on its own. Inter-agency collaborations can mobilize multiple partners for interventions with synergic outcomes (Foster-Fishman, Salem, Allend, & Fahrbach, 2001; Wolff, 2001). Given the promise of partnerships for community change, we chose to concentrate a part of this chapter on the role of partnership maker. The creation of coalitions is really a prelude to community change. Hence, we discuss as well the role of change maker. Finally, we discuss the role of knowledge maker, which should always accompany intervention efforts.

[Insert Table 9.5 About Here]

Partnership Maker

To make a change in an organization you need to find allies. Similarly, to make a change in a community you need partners. Table 9.5 describes seven steps in the creation and actualisation of partnerships for change. In each step the community psychologist assumes a particular role. She wears different hats depending on the phase, but she always keeps all the hats in her bag, just in case, for partnerships are very dynamic and boundaries across phases often blur. Still, it is useful to identify the primary role in each step. Based on our previous work and reports of other community psychologists we identify seven main roles for the seven main tasks of partnerships (Elias, 1994; Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson, & Allen, 2001; Nelson, Amio, Prilleltensky, & Nickels, 2000; Nelson, Prilleltensky, & MacGillivary, 2001; Prilleltensky, 2001; Prilleltensky, Martell, Valenzuela, Hernandez, 2001; Prilleltensky, Peirson, Gould, & Nelson, 1997; Wolff, 2001).

· Inclusive host: Whether you are initiating the partnership yourself, or you have been invited to one, you need to behave like an inclusive host. Power differentials are always at play in partnerships, primarily when community members with little or no formal education join the group. We think it is very important to contribute to a climate of respect and mutual support

· Visionary: Once we are comfortable with each other, the business of change begins. We caution against skipping this stage. As a collective, partners need to establish a common vision for the project. Our role is to help in visioning outcomes and processes for the collaborative work.

· Asset seeker: This is an important role for two reasons. First, in line with the values of self-determination, collaboration and respect for diversity, we want to afford everyone an opportunity to express her or his views about what needs to be done. Each person has the right to express an opinion, regardless of expert status. Second, and just as importantly, valuable knowledge emerges from everyone in the partnership: citizens, professionals, and volunteers alike. We will never know what material or conceptual assets people bring unless we look for them.

· Listener conceptualizer: To define the problem cooperatively we need to listen carefully to what all the partners are saying. Next, we need to formulate the problem in light of previous research and local knowledge.

· Pragmatic partner: At this stage we wear the doer hat. The time has come to take action, and to do it with others. However, we should not forget the previous roles. We still need to be inclusive hosts, asset seekers, and good listeners. We have to be able to read the context and assess the group’s readiness for action. To do so, we invoke the set of emotional and transformational skills presented in Table 9.4.

· Research partner: Throughout the planning and implementation, we study the work of the partnership. We engage partners in evaluating the process and the outcomes of the work.

· Trend setter: It is not enough to have an excellent pilot project that gets forgotten soon after it was born. We have to ensure that partners adopt the innovation and disseminate it widely. We have to create enduring trends, not just passing fads.

Change Maker

How do we make sure that partnerships do not end up reproducing the status quo? After all, collaboration is a powerful tool used by protectors of the status quo. Business elites and conservative groups strike alliances to repel threats to the dominant social order (Barlow & Campbell, 1995; McQuaig, 1998). The risk of dislocation, reviewed in the context of organizations, applies all the same to partnerships and coalitions. It is entirely possible that coalitions for health, safety and prevention divert attention from political reform. Hence, we make a distinction between partnership maker and change maker. For us, change makers have to elicit in themselves and others the transformational potential of emotional competencies. This involves asking hard questions such as whose interests the coalition represents, whose power will be enhanced, whose values will be upheld, and whose lives will be improved by the intervention (Lord & Church, 1998).

The emotional competencies for transformation reviewed earlier are a resource for community change. They just need to be focused on how the interventions will improve the lives of those with less power, less access to services, and less influence. Organizations like PICO strive to keep a focus on social change, as do consumer/survivor organizations struggling to change not only psychiatry, but society’s perceptions of people with mental health problems as well (see Chapter 21). Going back to Table 9.1, we want to make sure that our interventions transcend amelioration and move towards transformation.

Some radical transformations occur when people renounce the dominant system of consumerism and form communes and cooperatives such as Mondragon in Spain and the Israeli kibbutzim (Ife, 2002). In cooperatives of that kind people make major changes by adopting a simpler and more environmentally friendly lifestyle. These are examples of self-contained communities where cooperation is the primary value. Transformational changes in communities that are contiguous with the dominant capitalist system are harder to sustain.

Nation, Wandersman, and Perkins (in press) review the work of several North American community development corporations (CDCs) and comprehensive community initiatives (CCIs). These partnerships address health, psychological, social, economic and urban issues. The Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, for instance, implemented political and economic action that culminated in better social services, improved housing and new retail stores. Other efforts improved health habits and rates of child immunization. These and other achievements, obtained through community development, group mobilization, advocacy and political lobbying, tended to fade away due to lack of sustainability. For interventions to be effective, and to last, the authors recommend four strategies:

· Comprehensiveness: In line with the value of holism expressed in Chapter 2, the authors recommend intervening at multiple levels and targeting multiple issues at the same time. According to them “a piecemeal approach rarely produces the critical mass needed to turn around distressed communities” (Nation, Wandersman, & Perkins, in press, p. 15).

· Empowerment: Citizen participation and capacity building are emphasized to embed the intervention in the life of the community.

· Identification and utilization of assets: Similar to the role of asset seeker in creating partnerships, the authors recommend “identifying, mapping, developing, and using indigenous social, physical, and economic assets” (Nation, Wandersman, & Perkins, in press, p. 16).

· Sustainability: Community psychologists need to procure the continuation of material, human, environmental, social and political resources to maintain the momentum for change.

The Massachusetts Area Health Education Centre supports Health and Human Service Coalitions (Wolff, 2000). This coalition seems to enact most of the prescriptions suggested by Nation, Wandersman and Perkins. In addition, and crucially, the coalition seems to inch towards transformation. We describe the work of Tom Wolff and the coalition in Box 9.4.

[Insert Box 9.4 About Here]

Knowledge Maker

Community psychologists have much to learn from successful and failed interventions. Each intervention consists of mini-cycles of interventions. By studying the enabling and inhibiting factors each step of the way, they can improve the next cycle, and the one after that. We call this a formative evaluation. At the end of a project or a major initiative, it is time to take stock of what has been accomplished, what has been learned, and what could be done differently in the future. We call this summative or outcome evaluations. An action research approach that promotes learning by all stakeholders, throughout the whole process, ensures that important lessons are not lost along the way (Elias, 1994; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Reason & Bradbury, 2001). Part of the community psychologist’s job is to nurture a culture of knowledge.

What Are the Strengths and Limitations of Community Interventions?

The strengths and limitations of community interventions can be gleaned from a review on citizen participation and community organizations. Wandersman and Florin (2000) report that the main effects of citizen participation were related to physical and environmental conditions of the community, levels of crime, provision of social services, interpersonal relationships, sense of community, satisfaction with place of residence, personal efficacy, and psychological empowerment. Although these are positive and encouraging findings, their review did not reveal outcomes associated with increased political activity or direct social action. Most effects appear to be associated with ameliorative -- as opposed to transformative -- actions. Herein lie the main benefits and shortcomings of community interventions.

There is little doubt that community interventions can improve quality of life. Tangible outcomes in the form of reduced crime, abuse, violence, and improved health, cohesion, and urban civility make a difference in the daily lives of community members (McNeely, 1999; Power, 1996). Our challenge, however, is to blend the pursuit of short-term care and compassion with the long-term struggle for justice. For it is only when justice prevails that political, economic, and social resources can be distributed fairly and equitably.

What are some of the Dilemmas Faced by Community Psychologists

Working in Organizations and Communities?

Once you are trained to identify injustice at the interpersonal, organizational, community and societal levels, it is hard to keep it a secret. Once you associate with people who share your passion for making a difference, it is hard to live with norms of oppression. What’s the problem, you ask. The problem is that many others may not share your passion or convictions. When opposition mounts, you face a tough choice: struggle and resist or acquiesce. As Bond (1999) claimed, it is hard to remain connected with the people who perpetuate injustice. The dilemma is how far you can challenge the system before you begin paying a price in the form of exclusion, labelling, and disconnection. The opposite dilemma is no less pressing: How to live in harmony with your values if you do not enact resistance.

The foregoing dilemmas refer to taking action. A further quandary is what type of action to take. What to do when we are aware that, despite much rhetoric, we are stuck in ameliorative mode? David Chavis (2000) has been involved in community development for 25 years. He has worked for many citizen committees and organizations. His capacity building efforts have made a major contribution to many block associations. To what extent that type of work leads to transformation and not just amelioration is not very clear. Chavis (2001) himself criticizes community coalitions for not pushing the social justice agenda far enough.

SUMMARY

In this chapter we considered how community psychologists could make a difference in organizations and communities alike. We drew a distinction between interventions that ameliorate conditions of suffering and disadvantage and those that seek to make more profound transformations. This challenge pervades community psychology work. Typically, ameliorative changes attend to values such as caring, compassion, health, and a measure of participation. Transformative interventions, in turn, promote social justice, accountability, and meaningful participation and empowerment. To promote either type of change, we require skills that can be strategically applied at different stages of the intervention. Emotional competencies are important for working effectively with people in groups, organizations, and partnerships. To ensure that emotional competencies are used for social change, we pointed to their transformational potential.

Discrete steps can be followed to increase the likelihood of success in organizational and community interventions. Following the theory of change proposed by Prochaska and colleagues we outlined a sequence of steps for raising awareness of problems, planning, implementing and evaluating new initiatives.

At the community level, we identified three primary roles for community psychologists: partnership maker, change maker, and knowledge maker. Most of the skills and steps discussed in the organizational context may be applied in the community context and vice versa. The functions performed by the partnership maker (inclusive host, visionary, listener conceptualizer, asset seeker, pragmatic partner, research partner, and trend setter) can be assimilated into the job of the organizational developer. The emotional competencies identified for organizational work are equally valid in coalition formation (Cherniss, 2002). Likewise, the dilemmas experienced in organizations make life harder in community settings as well.

Resources

1. Volume 34, number 1 of The Community Psychologist (Winter 2001) contains a special section on liberation psychology edited by Rod Watts. You will find there some examples of interventions that move from amelioration towards transformation. January-February

2. A special issue of the American Journal of Community Psychology (2003), edited by Rod Watts and Irma Serrano Garcia, is entirely devoted liberation and responses to oppression. That special issue also contains examples of transformative interventions.

3. A special section of the American Journal of Community Psychology (2001, volume 29, number 2), edited by Thomas Wolff, deals extensively with the issue of community coalition building.

4. You studied in this chapter some of PICO’s interventions and strategies. You can visit their website on www.piconetwork.org

5. A group of community psychologists has developed a web-based community toolbox that contains user-friendly guidelines for community development. Visit http://ctb.ukans.edu

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (1992). Critical management studies. London: Sage.

Barlow, M., & Campbell, B. (1995). Straight through the heart: How the liberals abandoned the just society. Toronto: Harper Collins.

Baritz, L. (1974). The servants of power: A history of the use of social science in American industry. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Beehr, T., & O’Driscoll, P. (2002). Organizationally targeted interventions aimed at reducing workplace stress. In J. Thomas and M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of mental health in the workplace (pp. 103-119). London: Sage.

Blane, D., Brunner, E., & Wilkinson, R. (Eds.). (1996). Health and social organization. London: Routledge.

Bond, M. (1999). Gender, race, and class in organizational contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 327-356.

Boyd, N., & Angelique, H. (2002). Rekindling the discourse: Organization studies in community psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 325-348.

Chavis, D. (2000). Community development and the community psychologist. In J. Rappaport and E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 767-771). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Chavis, D. (2001). The paradoxes and promise of community coalitions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 309-320.

Cherniss, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and the good community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 1-12.

Cherniss, C., & Deegan, G. (2000). The creation of alternative settings. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 359-377). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Dalton, J., Elias, M., & Wandersman, A. (2001). Community psyhcoloyg: Linking individuals and communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Dimock, H. (1992). Intervention and empowerment: Helping organizations to change. North York, Ontario: Captus Press.

Duffy, K. G., & Wong, F. (2000). Community psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Elias, M. (1994). Capturing excellence in applied settings: A participant conceptualizer and praxis explicator role for community psychologists. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 293-318.

Fairweather, G. W. (1972). Social change: The challenge to survival. Secaucus, N. J.: General Learning Press.

Ferrari, J., Jason, L., Olson, B., Davis, M., & Alvarez, J. (2002). Sense of community among Oxford House residents recovering from substance abuse. In A. Fisher, C. Sonn, and B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community (pp. 109-122). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Fisher, A., Sonn, C., & Bishop, B. (Eds.). (2002). Psychological sense of community. New York: Klewer/Plenum.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Foster-Fishman, P., Salem, D., Allend, N., & Fahrbach, K. (2001). Facilitating interorganizational collaboration: The contributions of interorganizational alliances. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 875-906.

Foster-Fishman, P., Berkowitz, S., Lounsbury, D., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 241-262.

Goldenberg, I. (1971). Build me a mountain: Youth, poverty, and the creation of new settings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Hahn, A. (1994). The politics of caring: Human services at the local level. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Himmelman, A. (2001). On coalitions and the transformation of power relations: Collaborative betterment and collaborative empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 277-284.

Hollway, W. (1991). Work psychology and organizational behaviour. London: Sage.

hooks, b. (2002). Communion: The female search for love. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Ife, J. (2002). Community development: Community-based alternatives in an age of globalization. Frenchs Forest, New South Wales: Pearson Education Australia.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2000). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. London: Allyn and Bacon.

Keys, C., & Frank, S. (1987). Community psychology and the study of organizations: A reciprocal relationship. American Journal of Community Psychology, 115, 239-251.

Klein, K., Ralls, R. S., Smith Major, V., & Douglas, C. (2000). Power and participation in the workplace: Implications for empowerment theory, research, and practice. In J. Rappaport and E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 273-295). New York: Klewer Academic/Plenum.

Korten, D. (1999). The post-graduate corporate world. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler/Kumarian Press.

Kyronz, E., & Humphreys, K. (1997). Do health care work places affect treatment environments? Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 105-108.

Lawthom, R. (1999). Using the “F” word in organizational psychology: Foundations for critical feminist research. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 1, 67-82.

Lord, J., & Church, K. (1998). Beyond “partnership shock:” Getting to “yes,” living with “no.” Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 12, 113-121.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 137-150.

Marmot, M. (1999). Introduction. In M. Marmot and R. Wilkinson (Eds.), Social determinants of health (pp. 1-16). New York: Oxford University Press.

Marmot, M., & Feeney, A. (1996). Work and health: Implications for individuals and society. In D. Blane, E. Bruner, and R. Wilkinson (Eds.), Health and social organization (pp. 235-254). London: Routledge.

Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community settings. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 631-656.

McCubbin, M., & Dalgard, O. S. (2002, October). Le pouvoir comme determinant de la santé publique (power as determinant of population health). Presentation to Faculty of Nursing Sciences, Laval University.

McNeely, J. (1999). Community building. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 741-750.

McQuaig, L. (1998). The cult of impotence: Selling the myth of powerlessness in the global economy. Toronto: Viking.

Milne, D. (1999). Social therapy: A guide to social support interventions for mental health practitioners. New York: Wiley.

Mullaly, B. (2002). Challenging oppression: A critical social work approach. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Mustard, J. F. (1996). Health and social capital. In D. Blane, E. Brunner, and R. Wilkinson (Eds.), Health and social organization (pp. 303-313). London: Routledge.

Nation, M., Wandersman, A., & Perkins, D. D. (in press). Promoting healthy communities through community development. In D. Glenwick and L. Jason (Eds.), Innovatie strategies for preventing psychological problems. New York: Springer.

Nelson, G., Amio, J., Prilleltensky, I., & Nickels, P. (2000). Partnerships for implementing and evaluating school and community prevention programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11, 121-146.

Nelson, G., Lord, J., & Ochocka, J. (2001). Shifting the paradigm in community mental health: Towards empowerment and community. University of Toronto Press.

Nelson, G., Prilleltensky, I., & MacGillivary, H. (2001). Building value-based partnerships: Towards solidarity with oppressed groups. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 649-678.

Peirson, L., Prilleltensky, I., Nelson, G., & Gould, J. (1997). Planning mental health services for children and youth: Part II - Results of a value-based community consultation project. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(2), 173-183.

Perkins, D., D. (1995). Speaking truth to power: Empowerment ideology as social intervention and policy. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 765-794.

Power, A. (1996). Area-based poverty and resident empowerment. Urban Studies, 33, 1535-1565.

Prilleltensky, I. (1994). The morals and politics of psychology: Psychological discourse and the status quo. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Prilleltensky, I. (2001). Value-based praxis in community psychology: Moving toward social justice and social action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 747-778.

Prilleltensky, I., Martell, E., Valenzuela, E., & Hernandez, P. (2001). A value-based approach to smoking prevention with immigrants from Latin America: Philosophy and program description. Revista de Psicologia, 10(2), 81-100.

Prilleltensky, I., & Nelson, G. (1997). Community psychology: Reclaiming social justice. In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp.166-184). London: Sage.

Prilleltensky, I. & Nelson, G. (2002). Doing psychology critically: Making a difference in diverse settings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Prilleltensky, I., Peirson, L., Gould, & Nelson, G. (1997). Planning mental health services for children and youth: Part I - A value-based framework. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(2), 163-172.

Prilleltensky, I., Sanchez, L., Walsh Bowers, R., Rossiter, A. (2002). Applied Ethics in Mental Health in Cuba: Dilemmas and resources. Ethics and Behavior, 13, 243-260.

Prilleltensky, I., Walsh-Bowers, R., & Rossiter, A. (1999). Clinicians’ lived experience of ethics: Values and challenges in helping children. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 10(4), 315-342.

Prochaska, J., Norcorss, J., & DiClemente, C. (1994). Changing for good. New York: Avon Books.

Quarter, J. (1992). Canada=s social economy: Co-operatives, non-profits, and other community enterprises. Toronto: Lorimer.

Quarter, J., & Melnyk, G. (Eds.). (1989). Partners in enterprise: The worker ownership phenomenon. Montreal: Black Rose.

Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D., & Hurrell, J. (1997). Preventive stress management in organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research, and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.

Reinharz, S. (1984). Alternative settings and social change. In K. Heller, R. H. Price, S. Reinharz, S. Riger, & A. Wandersman, Psychology and community change: Challenges of the future (2^nd ed., pp. 286-336). Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Reppucci, D., Woolard, J., & Fried, C. (1999). Social, community, and preventive interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 387-418.

Riger, S. (2000). Transforming psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rossiter, A., Prilleltensky, I., & Walsh-Bowers, R. (2000). Postmodern professional ethics. In B. Fawcett, B. Featherstone, J. Fook, and A. Rossiter (Eds.), Postmodern and feminist perspectives in social work practice (83-103). London: Routledge.

Rossiter, A., Walsh-Bowers, R., & Prilleltensky, I. (2002). Ethics as a located story: A comparison of North American and Cuban professional ethics. Theory and Psychology, 12, 533-556.

Salem, D., Foster-Fishman, P., & Goodkind, J. (2002). The adoption of innovation in collective action organizations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 681-710.

Sarason, S. B. (1971). The creation of settings and the future societies. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Saul, J. R. (2001). On equilibrium. New York, NY: Penguin.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and the practice of the learning organization. Newe York: Doubleday.

Senge, P., Scharmer, O. (2001). Community action research: Learning as a community of practitioners, consultants and researchers. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 238-249). London: sage.

Shaw, M., Dorling, D., & Smith, G. D. (1999). Poverty, social exclusion, and minorities. In M. Marmot and R. Wilkinson (Eds.). Social determinants of health (pp. 211-239). New York: Oxford University Press.

Shinn, M., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). Contributions from organizational psychology. In J. Rappaport and E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 615-642). New York: Klewer Academic/Plenum.

Speer, P. (2002). Social power and forms of change: Implications for empowerment theory. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Speer, P., & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to empowerment and power. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 729-748.

Speer, P., Hughey, J., Gensheimer, L., & Adams-Leavitt, W. (1995). Organizing for power: A comparative case study. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 57-73.

Stansfeld, S. (1999). Social support and social cohesion. In M. Marmot and R. Wilkinson (Eds.), Social determinants of health (pp. 155-178). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, E. V. (1984). A critical psychology. New York: Plenum Press.

Svyantek, D., & Brown, L. (2002). Dysfunctioinal behavior in the workplace and organizational design, climate, and culture. In J. Thomas and M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of mental health in the workplace (pp. 477-500). London: Sage.

Tehrani, N. (Ed.). (2001). Building a culture of respect: Managing bullying at work. London: Taylor and Francis.

Thomas, J., & Hite, J. (2002). Mental health in the workplace: Toward an integration of organizational and clinical theory, research, and practice. In J. Thomas and M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of mental health in the workplace (pp. 3-14). London: Sage.

Tseng, V., Chesir-Teran, D., Becker-Klein, R., Chan, M., Duran, V., Robers, A., & Bardoliwalla, N. (2002). Promotion of social change: A conceptual framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 401-428.

Wadell, D., Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2000). Organisation development and change. Melbourne: Nelson Thomson Learning.

Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (2000). Citizen participation and community organizations. In J. Rappaport and E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology. (pp. 247-272). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Watts, R., & Serrano-García, I. (Eds.). (in press). The psychology of liberation: Responses to oppression [special issue]. American Journal of Community Psychology.

Weick, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386.

Wolff, T. (2000). Applied community psychology: On the road to social change. In J. Rappaport and E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology. (pp. 771-778). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Wolff, T. (Ed.). (2001). Community coalition building—Contemporary practice and research [Special section]. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2).

Figure 9.1

Percentage Of People In Distress By Occupational Status As Measured By The HSCL-10

Legend:

I Higher service class

II Lower service class

III Routine non-manual, self-employed, supervisors

IV Skilled manual

V Unskilled manual

Based on a longitudinal study of 18751 people in Oslo. The HSCL-10 is a short version of the HSCL-25 measuring psychological distress. The pattern of the chart remains the same when controlling for age and sex. Used with permission from the authors (McCubbin & Dalgard, 2002).

Table 9.1

Ameliorative and Transformative Interventions in Organizations

Population served by interventions	Ameliorative	Transformative
Workers within the organization	Collaboration across units Moderate participation Autonomy Caring and compassion for colleagues Conflict resolution plans Policies against harassment and bullying Family friendly policies Peer support Personal development Stress reduction Prevent burnout Improve communication	Accountability across and within levels of organization Attention to issues of social injustice Full participation in decision making processes Meaning seeking activities Attention to power differences Oppose discrimination Equalize power
Community, citizens, clients and consumers	Caring and compassion toward clients and citizens Workers contribute to civic associations through charity Partnerships for health and well-being Reinforce community structures Advocacy on behalf of clients Provision of new or better services	Mission of social change Allow community stakeholders full access to decision making Respect the environment Make community politically aware Accountability to disadvantaged members of community Support clients in resisting oppression and injustice

Table 9.2

Internal and External Agents of Change in Organizations

Internal Agents of Change	External Agents of Change
Managers Executive Director Administrator Staff member Member of the Board	Organizational Consultant Member of the Community Conflict Resolution Mediator Trainer Program Evaluator

Table 9.3

Emotional Competencies and Their Transformational Potential

Emotional Competencies

Transformational Potential

Personal competence Self-awareness Emotional awareness Accurate self-assessment Self-confidence Self-regulation Self-control Trustworthiness Conscientiousness Adaptability Innovation Motivation Achievement drive Commitment Initiative Optimism Social competence Empathy Understanding others Developing others Service orientation Leveraging diversity Political awareness Social skills Influence Communication Conflict management Leadership Change catalyst Building bonds Collaboration and cooperation Team capabilities

Personal competence Self-awareness Recognizing personal experiences of oppression Understanding impact of oppression on self Sense of agency Self-regulation Monitoring effects of oppression on behaviour Ethical behaviour in all domains of life Accountability for actions Appreciation of impact of change on self Willingness to be challenged Motivation Pursuit of liberation and well-being Commitment to change, liberation and well-being Ability to mobilize self and others Work with others to maintain hope Social competence Empathy Appreciating others’ experiences of oppression Promoting others’ sense of agency Transformational orientation Respecting and valuing minorities’ experiences Perceiving effects of power dynamics in groups Social skills Persuasive in promoting need for justice Active listening and use of plain messages Fair resolution of differences Inspiring self and others to do their best Promotion of change for liberation and well-being Solidarity with people who are marginalized Value-based partnerships Fostering synergy, fun, and satisfaction in group

Table 9.4

Steps for Organizational Change

Steps	Aim: What do we want to achieve?	People: Who should be involved?	Tasks: What needs to be done?	Accountability: Who will do it?	Timetable: When will it be done?
Pre-contemplation	Create awareness	Allies in change	Inform others	Choose effective people	Decide on period of time to raise awareness
Contemplation	Create need for change	Allies and potential allies	Identify specific problems and spread information	People with credibility in organization	Enough time to build momentum for change
Preparation	Choose specific goals and areas of change	People with influence and credibility	Gather data about problem and devise plan	Internal and/or external consultants with representative group	Have clear timelines for preparation phase
Action	Carry out most effective interventions	Everyone affected by the proposed change	Multiple tasks associated with changes	Involve multiple agents of change	Decide ahead of time on schedule as too much time diminishes credibility
Maintenance	Put in place systems for sustainability	Everyone affected by change	Key activities to sustain and institutionalise change	As many people as possible	Offer maintenance activities at regular intervals
Evaluation	Evaluate process and outcomes of change	Consult with as many people affected as possible	Quantitative and qualitative techniques of evaluation	Internal and/or external evaluators	Ideally conduct pre, during and post evaluations
Follow up	Become a learning and empowering organization	As many people affected by intervention as possible	Institutionalise learning circles and cycles	Decentralize responsibility for learning cycles and circles	Continuous cycle of learning

Table 9.5

Roles, Steps, Tasks, and Challenges for the Development of Community Partnerships

Roles and Steps	Tasks	Challenges for Community Psychologists
Inclusive host Create partnerships	• Include members of the organizations and communities where the intervention is to take place • Create a welcoming and friendly climate for partners	• Abandon the role of the expert and share power with partners • Reduce barriers to participation for partners
Visionary Clarify values and vision and derive working principles	• Collaboratively clarify values and vision to guide the project • Derive working principles and ground rules for how the group and program should work	• Engage in self-reflexive analysis of personal values • Be open to being challenged by partners • Be aware of value incongruence and strive to reduce it
Asset seeker Identify and amalgamate the strengths of different partners and approaches	• Identify and build on strengths of different partners • Integrate deductive and inductive approaches to planning and implementation	• Work to overcome self-doubts and mistrust of community members • Value the experiential knowledge of community partners • Find common ground and respect differences to bridge the worlds of community members and professionals
Listener conceptualizer Define the problem collaboratively	• Collaboratively define and analyze the problem in terms of power differentials, oppression and injustice • Focus on the strengths of the community	• Reconcile differing views and build consensus regarding a plan of action • Build ownership and support for actions
Pragmatic partner Develop and implement the intervention collaboratively	• Collaboratively decide on what type of intervention to implement • Ensure that necessary human and material resources are available for intervention	• Share with partners knowledge from literature about successful interventions • Ensure that community psychology values are respected throughout the entire process
Research partner Research and evaluate collaboratively	• Use both deductive (quantitative) and inductive (qualitative) approaches in program evaluation • Research and evaluate each of the steps	• Institute continuous cycle of learning in the partnership • Clarify roles of partners
Trend setter Disseminate and institutionalize	• Share knowledge and lessons learned with others • Build mechanisms for making partnership and interventions integral part of agencies.	• Move beyond pilot stage and consider sustainability a priority • Think long term even while confronting the challenges of the short term

Adapted from Nelson, Amio, Prilleltensky, and Nickels (2000)

Box 9.1

What To Do When You Find You Are Riding a Dead Horse

I. Change riders

II. Buy a stronger whip

III. Say “This is the way we’ve always ridden”

IV. Appoint a committee to study the horse

V. Arrange a visit to other sites to see how they ride a dead horse

VI. Increase the standards for riding dead horses

VII. Appoint a group to revive the dead horse

VIII. Create a training session to improve riding skills

IX. Compare the state of dead horses in today’s environment

X. Change the requirements so that the horse no longer meets the standard of death

XI. Hire an external consultant to show how a dead horse can be ridden

XII. Change performance requirements for the horse

XIII. Increase funding to improve the horse’s performance

XIV. Declare that no horse is too dead to beat

XV. Buy a computer program to enhance dead horse performance

Box 9.2

Occupational Status, Control, and Risk of Death

Michael Marmot, a former Australian, was knighted for his ground--breaking research in England. Marmot studied the lives of thousands of British Civil servants. He followed up the lives of government employees for over 25 years. After he eliminated all other possible sources of health and illness, he realized that those workers who experienced little control over their jobs were two, three, and even four times more likely to die than those who experienced a lot of control over their jobs.

Marmot (1999) divided the civil servants into four groups: Managers, professionals, clerical, and office support. Managers had the most amount of control over their jobs whereas the group called office support had the least. Professionals were second and clerical staff third. Compared to managers, professionals were twice as likely to die, clerical staff were three times as likely, and the last group, which included people with few skills, were four times more likely to die. This is a persuasive argument for augmenting the level of control people can have in organizations.

Box 9.3

Lodge Societies and Oxford Houses

Community psychologist George Fairweather (1972) developed an intervention approach called “experimental social innovation.” He argued for the creation of innovative programs, rigorous experimental evaluation of such programs to demonstrate their effectiveness, and then active dissemination of the empirically-validated innovation. As an example, Fairweather and colleagues developed a community alternative to institutionalization for people with serious mental health problems called the “lodge society.” The lodge was a residential setting that emphasized what we would now recognize as self-help principles. Former patients lived cooperatively and operated small businesses. A randomized controlled trial showed that the lodge residents were less likely to be rehospitalized and more likely to work than patients with typical discharge services.

Oxford Houses are residential settings designed to help people recover from alcohol and substance abuse. The houses afford residents a great degree of freedom in choice of treatment and lifestyle. Run democratically, residents exert a fair amount of control over daily routines and maintenance. Through the creation of a supportive mutual help community, residents help each other to recover from the effects of their addictions. Researchers from DePaul University in Chicago found that the psychological sense of community experienced in the setting was very important to residents in their struggle towards abstinence and recovery (Ferrari, Jason, Olson, Davis, & Alvarez, 2002). Community psychologists play an important role in devising, evaluating, and improving residential options for recovery.

Box 9.4

Health and Human Service Coalitions in Massachusetts:

Inching Towards Transformation?

Community psychologist Thomas Wolff works for the Massachusetts Area Health Education Centre. He works with coalitions to improve the quality of life in the community. The coalitions have six guiding principles:

1. Starting with issues identified by the local community
2. Including as many interested people as possible
3. Having the community define its own boundaries
4. Moving from planning to achievable goals
5. Willingness to engage in advocacy
6. Working towards long term goals, as social change requires perseverance

Although the coalitions’ initial efforts typically focus on health issues and human services, they generally move towards transformative and political aims that address social change. The Worcester Latino Coalition, for instance, started addressing access to health care but developed into a voter registration campaign. “When coalitions realize that members of the legislature and city hall listen and respond to their issues, they move from a sense of powerlessness to one of empowerment” (Wolff, 2000, p. 774).

Box 9.3

Lodge Societies and Oxford Houses

Community psychologist George Fairweather (1972) developed an intervention approach called “experimental social innovation.” He argued for the creation of innovative programs, rigorous experimental evaluation of such programs to demonstrate their effectiveness, and then active dissemination of the empirically-validated innovation. As an example, Fairweather and colleagues developed a community alternative to institutionalization for people with serious mental health problems called the “lodge society.” The lodge was a residential setting that emphasized what we would now recognize as self-help principles. Former patients lived cooperatively and operated small businesses. A randomized controlled trial showed that the lodge residents were less likely to be rehospitalized and more likely to work than patients with typical discharge services.

Oxford Houses are residential settings designed to help people recover from alcohol and substance abuse. The houses afford residents a great degree of freedom in choice of treatment and lifestyle. Run democratically, residents exert a fair amount of control over daily routines and maintenance. Through the creation of a supportive mutual help community, residents help each other to recover from the effects of their addictions. Researchers from DePaul University in Chicago found that the psychological sense of community experienced in the setting was very important to residents in their struggle towards abstinence and recovery (Ferrari, Jason, Olson, Davis, & Alvarez, 2002). Community psychologists play an important role in devising, evaluating, and improving residential options for recovery.